International Socialists

What's going on here? First the Labour Government becomes the US's "very, very, very good friend," sends combat troops to Afghanistan and warships to the Middle East, gets a high powered group of American senators to back a free trade deal – then – after some off-the-cuff comments about the slow progress of the war made by Helen Clark at the end of a press conference in March, extraordinarily strong (in diplomatic terms) criticism comes from Washington, forcing Clark into a humiliating apology and backdown – and almost immediate promises of "peace-keeping" forces for post-war Iraq.<> TC  "What's going on here? First the Labour Government becomes the US's "very, very, very good friend," sends combat troops to Afghanistan and warships to the Middle East, gets a high powered group of American senators to back a free trade deal – then – after some off-the-cuff comments about the slow progress of the war made by Helen Clark at the end of a press conference in March, extraordinarily strong (in diplomatic terms) criticism comes from Washington, forcing Clark into a humiliating apology and backdown – and almost immediate promises of "peace-keeping" forces for post-war Iraq." l 1 <> <><>

Clark finds herself attempting an extremely delicate balancing act internationally: On the one hand, the New Zealand ruling class desperately wants to secure a free trade deal with the United States. Just before she made her comments in March, 19 US senators had written to President Bush urging him to sign a free trade agreement with New Zealand, arguing that NZ should get the deal because of its "major contribution to the campaign against terrorism," (despite the fact that Labour claims trade and "security" issues are kept separate).

But on the other hand, the ruling class has to consider its relations with the European powers outside Britain – especially France. The ferocious falling out of France and to a lesser extent Germany with the US and Britain may not quite signal the opening shots of World War III – but it does mark the beginning of a significant realignment in international power relations.

As well, Labour has been forced to take strong opposition to the war within New Zealand into account.

Until Clark's comments, it was actually managing to do this surprisingly well – thanks largely to widespread illusions in the United Nations (allowing "not supporting the war without UN approval" to sound like an anti-war statement) as well as the complete lack of media scrutiny over just what the hell the frigates were doing in the Arabian Sea.

Putting aside the diplomatic jargon then, several key points emerge:

• Labour never "opposed" a war against Iraq – they simply preferred to give it a humanitarian cover through the UN.

• Labour has been so concerned about avoiding any embarrassment to the US over the war it has used repressive measures against the anti-war movement in New Zealand (see article).

• But even this – and Clark's grovelling apology – weren't enough. The US was willing to clobber even "very, very, very good friends" who stepped even slightly out of line with the Bush doctrine – in New Zealand's case by ditching the free trade agreement.

• Labour's difficulties centre around a desire to create a balancing act between the US and Europe – in the midst of developing rivalries between the European Union (except Britain) and the US.

Labour claimed it opposed the war. But it is now committed to sending military forces to an Iraq under US occupation. Labour was never opposed to the end – occupying Iraq for Western interests – but simply to the means.